Chris Mannix at SI

by **HJS** on Tue Apr 06, 2010 7:57 am

BC's own... working at Sports Illustrated... has been following the BC search on Twitter.
Seems to be a big fan of Gene and the search - http://twitter.com/ChrisMannixSI

by **b0mberMan** on Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:20 am

TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:
HJS {l Wrote}:...Seems to be a big fan of Gene and the search...

he MUST be a post 2004 grad...

02 or 03. I forget which.

by **BCDF22** on Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:25 am

He is a 2002 grad. He was my roommate at South St. Kevin Mannix's nephew, not son

by **pick6pedro** on Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:28 am

Speaking of BC in the sports media, a 2003 grad is an instrumental part of the team that is currently setting up ESPNTwinCities.

by **Cadillac90** on Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:31 am

HJS {l Wrote}:BC's own... working at Sports Illustrated... has been following the BC search on Twitter.
Seems to be a big fan of Gene and the search - http://twitter.com/ChrisMannixSI

Can't read Twitter at work. Can you paraphrase? Thanks

by **HJS** on Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:33 am

Cadillac90 {l Wrote}:
HJS {l Wrote}:BC's own... working at Sports Illustrated... has been following the BC search on Twitter.
Seems to be a big fan of Gene and the search - http://twitter.com/ChrisMannixSI

Can't read Twitter at work. Can you paraphrase? Thanks

Written in reverse chron...

That BC refused to throw around all that ACC cash to make them a top program is, for an alum, really sad.
about 11 hours ago via UberTwitter
No disrespect to Donahue, but he had a senior laden team and got lucky with a 7-foot transfer. I'm not sold.
about 11 hours ago via UberTwitter
Steve Donahue is another classic mistake by a program that won't make the committment to being an elite athletic program.
about 11 hours ago via UberTwitter
I still want Bruce Pearl. But I'll take Brad Stevens.
about 11 hours ago via UberTwitter

by **b0mberMan** on Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:34 am

Cadillac90 {l Wrote}:
HJS {l Wrote}:BC's own... working at Sports Illustrated... has been following the BC search on Twitter.
Seems to be a big fan of Gene and the search - http://twitter.com/ChrisMannixSI

Can't read Twitter at work. Can you paraphrase? Thanks

I assumed this was a joke ( :kudos

, I laughed), but I'm not sure how one gets "a big fan of Gene" from Mannix's most recent tweets about the search:

I still want Bruce Pearl. But I'll take Brad Stevens.

Steve Donahue is another classic mistake by a program that won't make the committment to being an elite athletic program.

No disrespect to Donahue, but he had a senior laden team and got lucky with a 7-foot transfer. I'm not sold.

That BC refused to throw around all that ACC cash to make them a top program is, for an alum, really sad.

by **Cadillac90** on Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:35 am

HJS {l Wrote}:
Cadillac90 {l Wrote}:
HJS {l Wrote}:BC's own... working at Sports Illustrated... has been following the BC search on Twitter.
Seems to be a big fan of Gene and the search - http://twitter.com/ChrisMannixSI

Can't read Twitter at work. Can you paraphrase? Thanks

Written in reverse chron...

That BC refused to throw around all that ACC cash to make them a top program is, for an alum, really sad.
about 11 hours ago via UberTwitter
No disrespect to Donahue, but he had a senior laden team and got lucky with a 7-foot transfer. I'm not sold.
about 11 hours ago via UberTwitter
Steve Donahue is another classic mistake by a program that won't make the committment to being an elite athletic program.
about 11 hours ago via UberTwitter
I still want Bruce Pearl. But I'll take Brad Stevens.
about 11 hours ago via UberTwitter

Thanks. And thank you, :pickle

by **MilitantEagle** on Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:52 am

This guy wants Pearl or Stevens? What about Izzo? He's my first choice. He's taken MSU to six Final Fours and won the 2000 National Championship. Come on, Gene! Give him a call!

by **thebs19** on Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:01 am

MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:This guy wants Pearl or Stevens? What about Izzo? He's my first choice. He's taken MSU to six Final Fours and won the 2000 National Championship. Come on, Gene! Give him a call!

Nets are gonna offer him 12 mill/year.

If Gene can't match that offer he's a fucking joke!!

by **BCWest** on Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:04 am

MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:This guy wants Pearl or Stevens? What about Izzo? He's my first choice. He's taken MSU to six Final Fours and won the 2000 National Championship. Come on, Gene! Give him a call!

Make fun, but Stevens is going somewhere in the next year or two. And BC could not entice him with the current perception about what it is like to work for our AD and the current facility commitments BC is willing to make.

Yes, Pearl was not coming under almost any circumstances because of his buyout and contract, but that is ok. But that does not mean a serious and committed BC could not have gotten Stevens.

by **Cadillac90** on Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:06 am

thebs19 {l Wrote}:
MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:This guy wants Pearl or Stevens? What about Izzo? He's my first choice. He's taken MSU to six Final Fours and won the 2000 National Championship. Come on, Gene! Give him a call!

Nets are gonna offer him 12 mill/year.

If Gene can't match that offer he's a fucking joke!!

That's nice, rip the guy for wanting BC to hire the best coach.

by **thebs19** on Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:08 am

Cadillac90 {l Wrote}:
thebs19 {l Wrote}:
MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:This guy wants Pearl or Stevens? What about Izzo? He's my first choice. He's taken MSU to six Final Fours and won the 2000 National Championship. Come on, Gene! Give him a call!

Nets are gonna offer him 12 mill/year.

If Gene can't match that offer he's a fucking joke!!

That's nice, rip the guy for wanting BC to hire the best coach.

Big difference between wanting them to hire the best head coach, and ripping the program because they didn't hire Pearl or Stevens, which is what he did.

Did he say "Pearl or Stevens are my top choices, but since they're not attainable, Donahue seems like a good fit"?

Or did he label Donahue, before he is even hired, a "classic mistake", "really sad" and basically imply he'd "settle" for Brad Stevens, but anything less is a joke?

by **Cadillac90** on Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:10 am

thebs19 {l Wrote}:
Cadillac90 {l Wrote}:
thebs19 {l Wrote}:
MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:This guy wants Pearl or Stevens? What about Izzo? He's my first choice. He's taken MSU to six Final Fours and won the 2000 National Championship. Come on, Gene! Give him a call!

Nets are gonna offer him 12 mill/year.

If Gene can't match that offer he's a fucking joke!!

That's nice, rip the guy for wanting BC to hire the best coach.

Big difference between wanting them to hire the best head coach, and ripping the program because they didn't hire Pearl or Stevens, which is what he did.

Did he say "Pearl or Stevens are my top choices, but since they're not attainable, Donahue seems like a good fit"?

Or did he label Donahue, before he is even hired, a "classic mistake", "really sad" and basically imply he'd "settle" for Brad Stevens, but anything less is a joke?

You don't have to explain any further, I get it...We are what we are.

by **thebs19** on Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:13 am

Cadillac90 {l Wrote}:
You don't have to explain any further, I get it...We are what we are.

Love that this is the standard fallback response here.

Rather than debate on the facts, just turn to the "we are what we are" crap.

by **MilitantEagle** on Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:13 am

BCWest {l Wrote}:
MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:This guy wants Pearl or Stevens? What about Izzo? He's my first choice. He's taken MSU to six Final Fours and won the 2000 National Championship. Come on, Gene! Give him a call!

Make fun, but Stevens is going somewhere in the next year or two. And BC could not entice him with the current perception about what it is like to work for our AD and the current facility commitments BC is willing to make.

Yes, Pearl was not coming under almost any circumstances because of his buyout and contract, but that is ok. But that does not mean a serious and committed BC could not have gotten Stevens.

Stevens knows he has his pick for the next couple of years. And his season just now ended. So what do you want Gene to do? Spend the next few days chasing Stevens, delay Donahue and risk losing him to Clemson? In my opinion, Stevens will probably wait for the right big, fly-over state school job.

by **talon** on Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:15 am

thebs19 {l Wrote}:
Cadillac90 {l Wrote}:
You don't have to explain any further, I get it...We are what we are.

Love that this is the standard fallback response here.

Then why do you constantly spout off the "we are what we are" talking points?

by **DuchesneEast** on Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:16 am

I like his moxy. I wish BC would commit to be big team too. We could be an absolute beast if we really tried. Boston is a hot city and we are a hot school.

by **HJS** on Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:17 am

thebs19 {l Wrote}:
Cadillac90 {l Wrote}:
thebs19 {l Wrote}:
MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:This guy wants Pearl or Stevens? What about Izzo? He's my first choice. He's taken MSU to six Final Fours and won the 2000 National Championship. Come on, Gene! Give him a call!

Nets are gonna offer him 12 mill/year.

If Gene can't match that offer he's a fucking joke!!

That's nice, rip the guy for wanting BC to hire the best coach.

Big difference between wanting them to hire the best head coach, and ripping the program because they didn't hire Pearl or Stevens, which is what he did.

Did he say "Pearl or Stevens are my top choices, but since they're not attainable, Donahue seems like a good fit"?

Or did he label Donahue, before he is even hired, a "classic mistake", "really sad" and basically imply he'd "settle" for Brad Stevens, but anything less is a joke?

That isn't at all what he wrote. He wrote he wanted Pearl and Stevens. He wrote that he doesn't like the Donahue hire because he thinks he rode a senior-laden team plus a lucky 7-foot transfer to the Sweet Sixteen. He DID NOT write that he hates Donahue because he isn't Pearl or Stevens. He DID write that he is disappointed that BC didn't go all out in its search and wasn't willing to spend ACC money and make the necessary commitments to hire a great coach.

Wait... I know, I know... how does a Sports Illustrated reporter know what Gene did not do? It is reasonably inferred from the results of the "search": Donahue, Cooley, Coen. How do YOU know that Gene DID have an exhaustive search and WAS willing to spend ACC cash and WAS willing to make the necessary commitments to hire a big name?

by **Cadillac90** on Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:20 am

thebs19 {l Wrote}:
Cadillac90 {l Wrote}:
You don't have to explain any further, I get it...We are what we are.

Love that this is the standard fallback response here.

Rather than debate on the facts, just turn to the "we are what we are" crap.

There's nothing to debate, from everything you have been posting it is clear that you think this is the best BC can do. Gene shouldn't set his sights on a better caoch with a deeper track record and just settle for the first guy he interviewed that was able to sell himself. How about Gene doing his fucking job and selling the basketball program to a guy like Mark Few?????? Is that a lot to ask for? Would that have take two fucking weeks to come up with a compensation package, a committment to enhancing the facilites and an offer to allow him to let in one recruit of his choice per season (for starters)? Is that too much to ask GDF to do? My guess is that if he had done that, someone else would be announced the head coach today. If you think that is unreasonable or unrealistic, then you truly think that "we are what we are."

by **thebs19** on Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:26 am

HJS {l Wrote}: That isn't at all what he wrote. He wrote he wanted Pearl and Stevens. He wrote that he doesn't like the Donahue hire because he thinks he rode a senior-laden team plus a lucky 7-foot transfer to the Sweet Sixteen. He DID NOT write that he hates Donahue because he isn't Pearl or Stevens. He DID write that he is disappointed that BC didn't go all out in its search and wasn't willing to spend ACC money and make the necessary commitments to hire a great coach.

Wait... I know, I know... how does a Sports Illustrated reporter know what Gene did not do? It is reasonably inferred from the results of the "search": Donahue, Cooley, Coen. How do YOU know that Gene DID have an exhaustive search and WAS willing to spend ACC cash and WAS willing to make the necessary commitments to hire a big name?

First, he wrote "I want Pearl. But I'd take Stevens". Is that closer to what I wrote or what you wrote?

Secondly, he said Donahue is a "classic mistake". Is that closer to what I wrote or what you wrote?

Thirdly, what's ACC Money? Should we pay a guy like Coach K if he's not Coach K just to spend? Let's see what Donahue is gonna make and how that compares to the ACC.

Finally, the point of the "you don't know" is that, in fact, YOU DON'T KNOW. Did I ever claim to know what was going on with the search? No, that would be you, sir. But I do know that any "big names", like you wanted, wouldn't be made public and have to fly into Boston to meet with Gene at his home turf. Those would be taken care of through back-office communications to gauge interest, like happened with Pearl and Gregory.

So the search, from what was made public, included interviews with Donahue, Mooney, Coen and Cooley and offers to Pearl and Gregory. Again, if Donahue was his guy, how much longer did you want Gene to wait? Again, answer me the point of interviewing 2 or 3 more mid-major names like McKillop or Wojcik or whoever else if Donahue was his guy. Just so that the numbers were higher? Does that really make a search good or bad: the number of candidates spoken to?

by **thebs19** on Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:29 am

Cadillac90 {l Wrote}:
thebs19 {l Wrote}:
Cadillac90 {l Wrote}:
You don't have to explain any further, I get it...We are what we are.

Love that this is the standard fallback response here.

Rather than debate on the facts, just turn to the "we are what we are" crap.

There's nothing to debate, from everything you have been posting it is clear that you think this is the best BC can do. Gene shouldn't set his sights on a better caoch with a deeper track record and just settle for the first guy he interviewed that was able to sell himself. How about Gene doing his fucking job and selling the basketball program to a guy like Mark Few?????? Is that a lot to ask for? Would that have take two fucking weeks to come up with a compensation package, a committment to enhancing the facilites and an offer to allow him to let in one recruit of his choice per season (for starters)? Is that too much to ask GDF to do? My guess is that if he had done that, someone else would be announced the head coach today. If you think that is unreasonable or unrealistic, then you truly think that "we are what we are."

Give me the motivation for Mark Few to leave Gonzaga for 350 different Division 1 teams. Thats not a BC thing...thats like every school outside of a very very very select few. Ditto Brad Stevens to come to Boston with his entire team returning next year. Ditto Bruce Pearl. You have to look at it from both sides...why does it make sense for the coach to come here, not just why it makes sense for the school to look at the coach.

I've said this from the beginning, if Steve Donahue was not part of the first round but then added later, it would be a great move. But because he was the first guy interviewed and is causing the total number of candidates to not meet some threshold, everyone is flipping out.

by **Cadillac90** on Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:56 am

thebs19 {l Wrote}:Give me the motivation for Mark Few to leave Gonzaga for 350 different Division 1 teams. Thats not a BC thing...thats like every school outside of a very very very select few. Ditto Brad Stevens to come to Boston with his entire team returning next year. Ditto Bruce Pearl. You have to look at it from both sides...why does it make sense for the coach to come here, not just why it makes sense for the school to look at the coach.

I've said this from the beginning, if Steve Donahue was not part of the first round but then added later, it would be a great move. But because he was the first guy interviewed and is causing the total number of candidates to not meet some threshold, everyone is flipping out.

For Few it would be a better conference, bigger stage, tougher competition, take on the challenge and more money. Again, it is the AD's job to give him the reasons to want to come to BC. My view is that a more well know coach with a longer track record of success will automatically uplift the program and recruiting (what DeFilippo stated he wanted) versus a more risky choice who hasn't had a experience on the recruiting trail at this level. Do everything you can to minimize the risk of setting the program back and I don't think DeFilippo did everything in his power, that is just my opinion. I am happy with Donahue, I think he will do well but there is still a much bigger risk going with him over a more proven coach.

by **thebs19** on Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:17 am

Cadillac90 {l Wrote}:
thebs19 {l Wrote}:Give me the motivation for Mark Few to leave Gonzaga for 350 different Division 1 teams. Thats not a BC thing...thats like every school outside of a very very very select few. Ditto Brad Stevens to come to Boston with his entire team returning next year. Ditto Bruce Pearl. You have to look at it from both sides...why does it make sense for the coach to come here, not just why it makes sense for the school to look at the coach.

I've said this from the beginning, if Steve Donahue was not part of the first round but then added later, it would be a great move. But because he was the first guy interviewed and is causing the total number of candidates to not meet some threshold, everyone is flipping out.

For Few it would be a better conference, bigger stage, tougher competition, take on the challenge and more money. Again, it is the AD's job to give him the reasons to want to come to BC. My view is that a more well know coach with a longer track record of success will automatically uplift the program and recruiting (what DeFilippo stated he wanted) versus a more risky choice who hasn't had a experience on the recruiting trail at this level. Do everything you can to minimize the risk of setting the program back and I don't think DeFilippo did everything in his power, that is just my opinion. I am happy with Donahue, I think he will do well but there is still a much bigger risk going with him over a more proven coach.

Outisde of better conference, all of these points are very arguable. Yeah Boston is a bigger stage than Spokane, but which team gets more national attention? Hell, which team gets more local attention? Zags are a much bigger deal there than BC is in Boston. Look at who Gonzaga plays out of conference every year and talk to me about competition. More money is something no one can prove, cuz who knows how high Gonzaga would go to keep him. I'd imagine pretty high. Keep in mind he turned down IU a few years back, so he's obviously not itching to leave Gonzaga for the challenges of any BCS conference program. He's also from the Pacific Northwest, and an Oregon alum, so lets see what kind of offer they make him once the Izzo thing blows over.

Like I said in the other thread, BC is likely one stop away from being able to get the big names and sell all the points you list above. The problem is to get the great coach you need the great coach to building the program, garner interest, make it worthwhile to upgrade the facilities, etc. All things Al had no interest in doing. So Donahue is a great choice in that hes a guy hungry to make this job and this program his legacy. You do that, you get the local area interested in the program, then you can start selling the "Being in Boston" thing - the only ACC school in the northeast and all that jazz. THEN its an attractive job.

by **twballgame9** on Tue Apr 06, 2010 11:31 am

I'm not in the we are what we are camp. That said, Mannix is an ass like his uncle. WWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I WANT BRUCE PEARL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fact is, we are what we are = Coen. You can't get pissy when big time coaches decline to interview for your job. And make no mistake, Stevens is a big time coach right now. Jury's out on Donahue, an up and coming coach. If he can get it done, it is a great move, and you found the next great thing. If he can't, you fire him.

How hard is this?

by **BrightonEagle** on Tue Apr 06, 2010 12:16 pm

i think people are ignoring how few programs around the country are in the position to hire "established" coaches. i think that there are really only a handful of programs in the country that are in the position to do that. look at nova, tenn, and gtown (just to name a few). none of those coaches were "established" before they got there big job. i understand why bashing gene and the "we are what we are" stuff makes for nice rhetoric, but it's not always realistic in this context. we definitely shouldn't have the "we are what we are" attitude in terms of the program's potential, but it also doesn't really make sense to pretend we're unc when hiring a coach.

by **MilitantEagle** on Tue Apr 06, 2010 12:55 pm

campion {l Wrote}:
BrightonEagle {l Wrote}:i think people are ignoring how few programs around the country are in the position to hire "established" coaches. i think that there are really only a handful of programs in the country that are in the position to do that. look at nova, tenn, and gtown (just to name a few). none of those coaches were "established" before they got there big job. i understand why bashing gene and the "we are what we are" stuff makes for nice rhetoric, but it's not always realistic in this context. we definitely shouldn't have the "we are what we are" attitude in terms of the program's potential, but it also doesn't really make sense to pretend we're unc when hiring a coach.

If God could tell Moses that His name was "I AM WHO I AM" why should we be ashamed to say "WE ARE WHO WE ARE"?

I have no idea if you are joking or not, but I do think this "we are who we are" complaining has a decent amount of self-loathing involved. I love BC. I am proud of who we are now and what we can become in the future.

by **b0mberMan** on Tue Apr 06, 2010 12:56 pm

MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:
campion {l Wrote}:
BrightonEagle {l Wrote}:i think people are ignoring how few programs around the country are in the position to hire "established" coaches. i think that there are really only a handful of programs in the country that are in the position to do that. look at nova, tenn, and gtown (just to name a few). none of those coaches were "established" before they got there big job. i understand why bashing gene and the "we are what we are" stuff makes for nice rhetoric, but it's not always realistic in this context. we definitely shouldn't have the "we are what we are" attitude in terms of the program's potential, but it also doesn't really make sense to pretend we're unc when hiring a coach.

If God could tell Moses that His name was "I AM WHO I AM" why should we be ashamed to say "WE ARE WHO WE ARE"?

I have no idea if you are joking or not, but I do think this "we are who we are" complaining has a decent amount of self-loathing involved. I love BC. I am proud of who we are now and what we can become in the future.

... and gosh, darnit. People like you!

by **MilitantEagle** on Tue Apr 06, 2010 12:58 pm

b0mberMan {l Wrote}:
MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:
campion {l Wrote}:
BrightonEagle {l Wrote}:i think people are ignoring how few programs around the country are in the position to hire "established" coaches. i think that there are really only a handful of programs in the country that are in the position to do that. look at nova, tenn, and gtown (just to name a few). none of those coaches were "established" before they got there big job. i understand why bashing gene and the "we are what we are" stuff makes for nice rhetoric, but it's not always realistic in this context. we definitely shouldn't have the "we are what we are" attitude in terms of the program's potential, but it also doesn't really make sense to pretend we're unc when hiring a coach.

If God could tell Moses that His name was "I AM WHO I AM" why should we be ashamed to say "WE ARE WHO WE ARE"?

I have no idea if you are joking or not, but I do think this "we are who we are" complaining has a decent amount of self-loathing involved. I love BC. I am proud of who we are now and what we can become in the future.

... and gosh, darnit. People like you!

Ha. As I was typing it I knew I was giving the board regulars a HUGE softball...

by **b0mberMan** on Tue Apr 06, 2010 12:59 pm

MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:
b0mberMan {l Wrote}:
MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:
campion {l Wrote}:
BrightonEagle {l Wrote}:i think people are ignoring how few programs around the country are in the position to hire "established" coaches. i think that there are really only a handful of programs in the country that are in the position to do that. look at nova, tenn, and gtown (just to name a few). none of those coaches were "established" before they got there big job. i understand why bashing gene and the "we are what we are" stuff makes for nice rhetoric, but it's not always realistic in this context. we definitely shouldn't have the "we are what we are" attitude in terms of the program's potential, but it also doesn't really make sense to pretend we're unc when hiring a coach.

If God could tell Moses that His name was "I AM WHO I AM" why should we be ashamed to say "WE ARE WHO WE ARE"?

I have no idea if you are joking or not, but I do think this "we are who we are" complaining has a decent amount of self-loathing involved. I love BC. I am proud of who we are now and what we can become in the future.

... and gosh, darnit. People like you!

Ha. As I was typing it I knew I was giving the board regulars a HUGE softball...

Sincerity will be torn apart as a general rule here.

Chris Mannix at SI

Chris Mannix at SI

Re: Chris Mannix at SI

Re: Chris Mannix at SI

Re: Chris Mannix at SI

Re: Chris Mannix at SI

Re: Chris Mannix at SI

Re: Chris Mannix at SI

Re: Chris Mannix at SI

Re: Chris Mannix at SI

Re: Chris Mannix at SI

Re: Chris Mannix at SI

Re: Chris Mannix at SI

Re: Chris Mannix at SI

Re: Chris Mannix at SI

Re: Chris Mannix at SI

Re: Chris Mannix at SI

Re: Chris Mannix at SI

Re: Chris Mannix at SI

Re: Chris Mannix at SI

Re: Chris Mannix at SI

Re: Chris Mannix at SI

Re: Chris Mannix at SI

Re: Chris Mannix at SI

Re: Chris Mannix at SI

Re: Chris Mannix at SI

Re: Chris Mannix at SI

Re: Chris Mannix at SI

Re: Chris Mannix at SI

Re: Chris Mannix at SI

Re: Chris Mannix at SI

Who is online